BACKGROUND: Despite advancing technology for single-incision minimal access surgery, there have been no reports on the optimal operating setup and the instruments for use through a single port. This study therefore aimed to compare task performance in single-port surgery between crossed and uncrossed instruments (straight and distally coaxially curved). METHODS: A dedicated trainer box was used to investigate the performance of two tasks (pick-transfer-place and dissection) by 18 surgical residents using tworandomly allocated manipulating systems: (1) a conventional, uncrossed manipulation system (UCMS), with surgery through a cone-shaped 40-mm port using coaxially curved or straight instruments subtending a 30° manipulation angle, and (2) a crossed manipulation system (CMS), with surgery through a cylindrical miniport (25 mm) using coaxially curved instruments. RESULTS: The pick-transfer-place task performed with the UCMS enabled comparison between straight and curved coaxial instruments and showed that although the participants moved the same number of objects with either type (p = 0.464), they dropped a significantly more objects with straight instruments (1.5 ± 1.33 vs. 0.61 ± 0.85; p = 0.013). The execution of this task with the CMS (curved instruments only) provided a performance (dropped objects and error rates) equal to that obtained by the UCMS with curved instruments (p = 0.521, p = 0.989). The dissection task with the UCMS showed no difference between straight and curved coaxial instruments in dissection accuracy (75.6 vs. 75.5%; p = 0.950) or execution times (258 vs. 302 s; p = 0.367). The performance of this task by the CMS and the UCMS (with curved coaxial instruments) was equivalent with regard to dissection accuracy (p = 0.849) and execution time (p = 0.402). CONCLUSIONS: Using the UCMS, task performance is better with distally curved coaxial instruments. The CMS (with curved instruments) gives a task performance equivalent to that obtained with UCMS.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite advancing technology for single-incision minimal access surgery, there have been no reports on the optimal operating setup and the instruments for use through a single port. This study therefore aimed to compare task performance in single-port surgery between crossed and uncrossed instruments (straight and distally coaxially curved). METHODS: A dedicated trainer box was used to investigate the performance of two tasks (pick-transfer-place and dissection) by 18 surgical residents using two randomly allocated manipulating systems: (1) a conventional, uncrossed manipulation system (UCMS), with surgery through a cone-shaped 40-mm port using coaxially curved or straight instruments subtending a 30° manipulation angle, and (2) a crossed manipulation system (CMS), with surgery through a cylindrical miniport (25 mm) using coaxially curved instruments. RESULTS: The pick-transfer-place task performed with the UCMS enabled comparison between straight and curved coaxial instruments and showed that although the participants moved the same number of objects with either type (p = 0.464), they dropped a significantly more objects with straight instruments (1.5 ± 1.33 vs. 0.61 ± 0.85; p = 0.013). The execution of this task with the CMS (curved instruments only) provided a performance (dropped objects and error rates) equal to that obtained by the UCMS with curved instruments (p = 0.521, p = 0.989). The dissection task with the UCMS showed no difference between straight and curved coaxial instruments in dissection accuracy (75.6 vs. 75.5%; p = 0.950) or execution times (258 vs. 302 s; p = 0.367). The performance of this task by the CMS and the UCMS (with curved coaxial instruments) was equivalent with regard to dissection accuracy (p = 0.849) and execution time (p = 0.402). CONCLUSIONS: Using the UCMS, task performance is better with distally curved coaxial instruments. The CMS (with curved instruments) gives a task performance equivalent to that obtained with UCMS.
Authors: Ninh T Nguyen; Kevin M Reavis; Marcelo W Hinojosa; Brian R Smith; Samuel E Wilson Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: David Canes; Andre Berger; Monish Aron; Ricardo Brandina; David A Goldfarb; Daniel Shoskes; Mihir M Desai; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Francisco Miguel Sánchez-Margallo; Ana Maria Matos-Azevedo; Francisco Julián Pérez-Duarte; Silvia Enciso; Idoia Díaz-Guëmes Martín-Portugués Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Alberto Arezzo; Roberto Passera; Alberto Bullano; Yoav Mintz; Asaf Kedar; Luigi Boni; Elisa Cassinotti; Riccardo Rosati; Uberto Fumagalli Romario; Mario Sorrentino; Marco Brizzolari; Nicola Di Lorenzo; Achille Lucio Gaspari; Dario Andreone; Elena De Stefani; Giuseppe Navarra; Salvatore Lazzara; Maurizio Degiuli; Kirill Shishin; Igor Khatkov; Ivan Kazakov; Rudolf Schrittwieser; Thomas Carus; Alessio Corradi; Guenther Sitzman; Antonio Lacy; Selman Uranues; Amir Szold; Mario Morino Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Salvador Morales-Conde; Andrea Peeters; Yannick M Meyer; Stavros A Antoniou; Isaías Alarcón Del Agua; Alberto Arezzo; Simone Arolfo; Amir Ben Yehuda; Luigi Boni; Elisa Cassinotti; Giovanni Dapri; Tao Yang; Sofie Fransen; Antonello Forgione; Shahab Hajibandeh; Shahin Hajibandeh; Michele Mazzola; Marco Migliore; Christof Mittermair; Doris Mittermair; Antonio Morandeira-Rivas; Carlos Moreno-Sanz; Andrea Morlacchi; Eran Nizri; Myrthe Nuijts; Jonas Raakow; Francisco M Sánchez-Margallo; Juan A Sánchez-Margallo; Amir Szold; Helmut Weiss; Michael Weiss; Ricardo Zorron; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584